Then our equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.34°C is within the IPCC [2013] range of 1.5–4.5°C, and our transient climate response of 1.46°C is also within the IPCC [2013] range

Hier der Abstract:

Global warming projection in the 21st century based on an observational data-driven modelGlobal warming has been projected primarily by Earth system models (ESMs). Complementary to this approach, here we provide the decadal and long-term global warming projections based on an observational data-driven model. This model combines natural multidecadal variability with anthropogenic warming that depends on the history of annual emissions. It shows good skill in decadal hindcasts with the recent warming slowdown well captured. While our ensemble mean temperature projections at the end of 21st century are consistent with those from ESMs, our decadal warming projection of 0.35 (0.30-0.43) K from 1986–2005 to 2016–2035 is within their projection range and only two-thirds of the ensemble mean from ESMs. Our predicted warming rate in the next few years is slower than in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by a greater warming rate. Our projection uncertainty range is just one-third of that from ESMs, and its implication is also discussed.

Estimating climate sensitivity using two-zone energy balance modelsEstimates of 2 × CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly constrained EfCS values, in the neighborhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended two-zone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

On the Reproducibility of the IPCC’s climate sensitivity[...] The conclusion is that the IPCC’s warming values are about 200 % too high (1.75 degrees versus 0.6 degrees) because both the CO2 radiative forcing equation, and the CS calculation include water feedback. It is well-known that IPCC uses the water feedback in doubling the GH gas effects; even though there are relative humidity measurements showing that this assumption is not justified. CO2 radiative forcing by Myhre et al. includes also water feedback, and this has not been recognized before the author’s studies. This feature explains too high of a contribution of CO2.

How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in AntarcticaCO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

The key issue that this paper raises is about the quality of the global surface temperature data sets, particularly related to sampling. The paper infers that the trend of surface temperature anomalies in HadCRUT4 are 9-40% lower than the true global averages. Is this believable? Well the uncertainty in surface temperature trends (9-40%) doesn’t seem implausible, but the inference that the uncertainty is only on the side of insufficient warming doesn’t seem plausible.